Suburban Idelogy in Pastoral Capitalism
by Leidy Sanchez
The development of pastoral capitalism was influenced by suburban ideologies that framed the American identity over time. The suburbs were built on capitalistic notions of individuality, status, competition and power, which complemented well with the core values of the corporate institution. Suburbia became both a mindset and a manifestation of the American lifestyle. Corporations understood the significance of the suburban ideal and the power of the pastoral landscape in conveying an image of stability and success. Corporate presence in the suburbs in turn encouraged suburban growth and further cemented it into
American identity.
Capitalism In the Suburban Ideal
Throughout American history the suburbs have been associated with middle and upper class status. This suburban ideal developed from elite migration to the urban periphery during the eighteenth and nineteenth century encouraged by the expanding city center, emerging romantic views of nature and the growing U.S. capitalist economy. [1] These factors influenced elite relocation to the suburbs and initiated a suburban culture based on income and status, which have remained a part of the suburban identity.
Developers and suburban planners utilized this idealized view of suburbia as a tool to draw residents and corporate businesses away from urban centers and generate profits. Although the urban periphery was actually economically diverse, suburbia was marketed as affluent, “for the person who has reached that position in life” and “for the family accustomed to finer things.”[2] Strategic covenants were devised to maintain and protect this image of exclusivity in planned suburban communities.[3]Covenants served to restrict the types of properties that could be built and the type of people could reside in those properties.
Over time, covenants became associated with middle and upper class suburban developments and were utilized as a marketing tool to attract affluent residents. For example, New York Times advertisements of the 1920’s and 1930’s
for suburban homes in Westchester, New York promoted “sensible restrictions” and “carefully restricted” neighborhoods, which “assures the purchaser a steadily increasing investment”.[4]Not only did restrictive covenants make suburban neighborhoods more valuable, but they also further cemented the stereotypical image of the affluent suburbs.[5]
This powerful ideal allowed the suburbs to become a symbol of socioeconomic status and power on a global scale.[6]Through pastoral capitalism, corporations sought to capture the image of power and prestige associated with the suburbs. This was demonstrated by the exodus of General Foods Corporation in 1954 from the city center when it relocated its headquarters from New York City to the elite suburbs of Westchester County, and constructed a corporate estate to match the prestige of its new location.[7]
Suburbs as a Moral Place
The suburban ideal extends to the notion that the suburbs produce good and moral citizens. This effectively complemented the goals of corporate businesses, as good citizens translated into good workers. It was thought the pastoral landscape and community design positively influenced the behavior of its residents. Andrew Jackson Downing, a prominent landscape designer and writer of the 19thcentury, instilled the idea that “there is moral influence in a country home—when, among an educated, truthful, and refined people, is an echo
of their character.”[8]This statement makes two assumptions, one, that nature itself evokes a good moral character in people and two, that the affluence of country living generates positive behavior among its residents. Suburban corporations attributed significant decreases in turnover rates and greater employee satisfaction to the pastoral landscape and overall new suburban environment.[9] General Foods specifically, reported low turnover rates over a thirteen year period after relocating to its White Plains headquarters.[10]
Corporate suburbanization was partly influenced by the idea that the suburbs would produce a more pleasant and creative work environment for its employees amidst an abundance of nature, which in turn would produce better work.[11] Corporations like General Foods believed that the suburbs contained a ‘more suitable and educated workforce’ than the growing ethnically diverse population found in the city centers. White, middle-class women were particularly sought after for demanding clerical positions, and the suburbs were viewed as the ideal location for that labor force (see section on Gender in Pastoral Capitalism for more information [12]
Consumption in the Suburbs
The high consumption suburban lifestyle fit well with the capitalistic culture of the corporate offices.[13] The prosperous post-world war II era was driven by a strong economy and consumerism, which allowed suburbanization to flourish and the United States to maintain its success in the global economy.[14]During this time, a home was considered the ultimate purchase in the United States and changes in federal policies made suburban homeownership more accessible to white, middle-class families. Purchasing a home in the suburbs often prompted more consumption of goods, like automobiles and household appliances, which further stimulated the economy. Furthermore, in the same way that corporations owned their estates, they expected their employees to also pursue ownership of their homes. Companies like General Foods anticipated that their employees would conform to the suburban ideal and lifestyle, which involved homeownership.[15] As office spaces in the suburbs expanded and surpassed the city center, the suburbs and the corporate offices simultaneously became a symbol of suburbia and American capitalism.[16]
Notes:
[1] B.M. Nicolaides and A. Weise, eds. The Suburb Reader (New York: Routledge, 2006) 13.
[2] Dennis R. Judd and Todd Swanstrom, City Politics: The Political Economy of Urban America, 8thed. (Pearson,
2012) 265-266.
[3] B. M. Nicolaides and A. Weise, eds. The Suburb Reader (New York: Routledge, 2006) 99.
[4] New York Times, Display Ads, June 13, 1926 and August 30, 1936. \
[5] Robert M. Fogelson, Bourgeois Nightmares: Suburbia, 1870-1930 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005) 68
[6] Louise A. Monzingo. Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011) 37.
[7] Monzingo. 37.
[8] Andrew Jackson Downing, “Details the Virtues and Design of Country Living, 1850” in The Suburb Reader. Eds. B. M. Nicolaides and A. Weise(New York: Routledge, 2006) 19.
[9] Monzingo,41.
[10]Ibid 41, 110
[11] Monzingo. 132.
[12] Ibid, 40.
[13] Bernadette Halon et al. Cities and Suburbs: New Metropolitan Realities in the US (Routledge, 2009) 38-9.
[14] Ibid, 39.
[15] Monzingo. 111.
[16]Monzingo; 17, 147.
The development of pastoral capitalism was influenced by suburban ideologies that framed the American identity over time. The suburbs were built on capitalistic notions of individuality, status, competition and power, which complemented well with the core values of the corporate institution. Suburbia became both a mindset and a manifestation of the American lifestyle. Corporations understood the significance of the suburban ideal and the power of the pastoral landscape in conveying an image of stability and success. Corporate presence in the suburbs in turn encouraged suburban growth and further cemented it into
American identity.
Capitalism In the Suburban Ideal
Throughout American history the suburbs have been associated with middle and upper class status. This suburban ideal developed from elite migration to the urban periphery during the eighteenth and nineteenth century encouraged by the expanding city center, emerging romantic views of nature and the growing U.S. capitalist economy. [1] These factors influenced elite relocation to the suburbs and initiated a suburban culture based on income and status, which have remained a part of the suburban identity.
Developers and suburban planners utilized this idealized view of suburbia as a tool to draw residents and corporate businesses away from urban centers and generate profits. Although the urban periphery was actually economically diverse, suburbia was marketed as affluent, “for the person who has reached that position in life” and “for the family accustomed to finer things.”[2] Strategic covenants were devised to maintain and protect this image of exclusivity in planned suburban communities.[3]Covenants served to restrict the types of properties that could be built and the type of people could reside in those properties.
Over time, covenants became associated with middle and upper class suburban developments and were utilized as a marketing tool to attract affluent residents. For example, New York Times advertisements of the 1920’s and 1930’s
for suburban homes in Westchester, New York promoted “sensible restrictions” and “carefully restricted” neighborhoods, which “assures the purchaser a steadily increasing investment”.[4]Not only did restrictive covenants make suburban neighborhoods more valuable, but they also further cemented the stereotypical image of the affluent suburbs.[5]
This powerful ideal allowed the suburbs to become a symbol of socioeconomic status and power on a global scale.[6]Through pastoral capitalism, corporations sought to capture the image of power and prestige associated with the suburbs. This was demonstrated by the exodus of General Foods Corporation in 1954 from the city center when it relocated its headquarters from New York City to the elite suburbs of Westchester County, and constructed a corporate estate to match the prestige of its new location.[7]
Suburbs as a Moral Place
The suburban ideal extends to the notion that the suburbs produce good and moral citizens. This effectively complemented the goals of corporate businesses, as good citizens translated into good workers. It was thought the pastoral landscape and community design positively influenced the behavior of its residents. Andrew Jackson Downing, a prominent landscape designer and writer of the 19thcentury, instilled the idea that “there is moral influence in a country home—when, among an educated, truthful, and refined people, is an echo
of their character.”[8]This statement makes two assumptions, one, that nature itself evokes a good moral character in people and two, that the affluence of country living generates positive behavior among its residents. Suburban corporations attributed significant decreases in turnover rates and greater employee satisfaction to the pastoral landscape and overall new suburban environment.[9] General Foods specifically, reported low turnover rates over a thirteen year period after relocating to its White Plains headquarters.[10]
Corporate suburbanization was partly influenced by the idea that the suburbs would produce a more pleasant and creative work environment for its employees amidst an abundance of nature, which in turn would produce better work.[11] Corporations like General Foods believed that the suburbs contained a ‘more suitable and educated workforce’ than the growing ethnically diverse population found in the city centers. White, middle-class women were particularly sought after for demanding clerical positions, and the suburbs were viewed as the ideal location for that labor force (see section on Gender in Pastoral Capitalism for more information [12]
Consumption in the Suburbs
The high consumption suburban lifestyle fit well with the capitalistic culture of the corporate offices.[13] The prosperous post-world war II era was driven by a strong economy and consumerism, which allowed suburbanization to flourish and the United States to maintain its success in the global economy.[14]During this time, a home was considered the ultimate purchase in the United States and changes in federal policies made suburban homeownership more accessible to white, middle-class families. Purchasing a home in the suburbs often prompted more consumption of goods, like automobiles and household appliances, which further stimulated the economy. Furthermore, in the same way that corporations owned their estates, they expected their employees to also pursue ownership of their homes. Companies like General Foods anticipated that their employees would conform to the suburban ideal and lifestyle, which involved homeownership.[15] As office spaces in the suburbs expanded and surpassed the city center, the suburbs and the corporate offices simultaneously became a symbol of suburbia and American capitalism.[16]
Notes:
[1] B.M. Nicolaides and A. Weise, eds. The Suburb Reader (New York: Routledge, 2006) 13.
[2] Dennis R. Judd and Todd Swanstrom, City Politics: The Political Economy of Urban America, 8thed. (Pearson,
2012) 265-266.
[3] B. M. Nicolaides and A. Weise, eds. The Suburb Reader (New York: Routledge, 2006) 99.
[4] New York Times, Display Ads, June 13, 1926 and August 30, 1936. \
[5] Robert M. Fogelson, Bourgeois Nightmares: Suburbia, 1870-1930 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005) 68
[6] Louise A. Monzingo. Pastoral Capitalism: A History of Suburban Corporate Landscapes (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011) 37.
[7] Monzingo. 37.
[8] Andrew Jackson Downing, “Details the Virtues and Design of Country Living, 1850” in The Suburb Reader. Eds. B. M. Nicolaides and A. Weise(New York: Routledge, 2006) 19.
[9] Monzingo,41.
[10]Ibid 41, 110
[11] Monzingo. 132.
[12] Ibid, 40.
[13] Bernadette Halon et al. Cities and Suburbs: New Metropolitan Realities in the US (Routledge, 2009) 38-9.
[14] Ibid, 39.
[15] Monzingo. 111.
[16]Monzingo; 17, 147.